ObamaCare Forums are non-partisan. Ask questions, find information, discuss & debate about the Affordable Care Act, and please remember to follow the forum rules. Please do not debate and provide opinions within discussions in the categories for facts. Thank you for helping to keep these forums informative and constructive.
Folks would not have a problem if there were no mandates, both the employer and moreso the individual. They are also bellyaching about limited networks (for the cheaper policies), but these folks were bitching about how the HMOs did that in the '90s. And they are understandably mad that the policies seem to cost so much more (even though a lot of folks get a tax credit that makes the cost less) than what they had in the individual market - but they don't understand that those policies were either junky (i.e., didn't really cover anything serious, but they didn't learn about this as they had been healthy and didn't get into the status of needing serious coverage) and/or were based on the fact that they were healthy and so did not represent the actuarial risk of the population at-large (i.e., sick folks weren't able to buy those policies priced for healthy folks), and that the ACA policies mandate unlimited coverage, while their pre-ACA policies had some sort of limit (which may have seemed to be high, but once you get into hard cancer and exotic diseases are not high enough). I have read that this unlimited provision could be the reason for a whole quarter of the ACA policies. And finally you have the standard libertarian and conservative curmudgeons who always complain about redistribution and "control from Washington".
With that said, there are some folks who didn't like the pre-ACA system and rightfully have determined that the ACA doesn't really control costs the way that they think a more market-based system would. The problem is that once health care is considered an essential human need (like food, clothing, shelter), it cannot be subject to the vagaries of the free market. The best thing that the ACA has done is satisfy this need, and there is no political way that this need will not be addressed in any replacement, no matter what the about-to-crack-up Republican Party thinks. And there are some folk who respond that they disfavor the ACA because they are for Medicare-For-All, even though they prefer the having the ACA rather than not.
I am not sure why RWT wants his fellow Americans to die from lack of health care ...
I think this question has already been answered by the way that the Republicans, leading up to the latest SCOTUS case concerning ObamaRomneyHeritageCare, were falling all over themselves to assure nervous constituents that their premium tax credit would not be rescinded. The "plans" that they have been coming up as replacement all keep the major tenets of ObamaRomneyHeritageCare intact (although less generous with the tax credit), with the major exception of the mandates. both on employers (of a certain size) & individuals; their plans completely dispense with the employer mandate (which I agree with as the best way to ensure the political viability of ObamaRomneyHeritageCare is to take away the ability of folks to get tax-advantaged coverage via their employer, forcing them into the individual market, the strengthening of which is what ObamaRomneyHeritageCare was all about), but seem to come up with a quirky rule that folks who do not keep coverage lose the right to purchase regulated coverage. This last part is the typical, cynical way that Republicans operate: get a law that sounds great at first, but that later becomes bad; in this case, what would happen is that folks would find out that they are both sick and not eligible to get coverage, thereby making those gutless t3rds put back in the guaranteed issue, but without the individual mandate, which would really screw over folks who wouldn't get a tax credit based on the cot of coverage.